A Review of 20??Years??? Experience with the Novopen?? Family of Insulin Injection Devices

Advancements in Insulin Pumps: A Comprehensive Exploration of Insulin Pump Systems, Technologies, and Future Directions

Insulin pumps have transformed the way diabetes is managed by providing a more accurate and individualized method of delivering insulin, in contrast to conventional injection routines. This research explores the progression of insulin pumps, following their advancement from initial ideas to advanced contemporary systems. The report proceeds to categorize insulin pumps according to their delivery systems, specifically differentiating between conventional, patch, and implantable pumps. Every category is thoroughly examined, emphasizing its unique characteristics and capabilities. A comparative examination of commercially available pumps is provided to enhance informed decision making. This section provides a thorough analysis of important specifications among various brands and models. Considered factors include basal rate and bolus dosage capabilities, reservoir size, user interface, and compatibility with other diabetes care tools, such as continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices and so on. This review seeks to empower healthcare professionals and patients with the essential information to improve diabetes treatment via individualized pump therapy options. It provides a complete assessment of the development, categorization, and full specification comparisons of insulin pumps.

Sex- and Age Group-Specific Fracture Incidence Rates Trends for Type 1 and 2 Diabetes Mellitus

The incidence of major osteoporotic fractures has declined in men and women in Western countries over the last two decades. Although fracture risk is higher in persons with diabetes mellitus, trends of fractures remain unknown in men and women with diabetes. We investigated the trends in fracture incidence rates (IRs) in men and women with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1D) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D) in Denmark between 1997 and 2017. We identified men and women aged 18+ years who sustained a fracture (excluding skull and facial fractures) between 1997 and 2017 using the Danish National Patient Registry. We calculated sex-specific IRs of fractures per 10,000 person-years separately in persons with T1D, T2D, or without diabetes. Furthermore, we compared median IRs of the first 5 years (1997-2002) to the median IRs of the last 5 years (2012-2017). We identified 1,235,628 persons with fractures including 4863 (43.6% women) with T1D, 65,366 (57.5% women) with T2D, and 1,165,399 (54.1% women) without diabetes. The median IRs of fractures declined 20.2%, 19.9%, and 7.8% in men with T1D, T2D, and without diabetes, respectively (p-trend <0.05). The median IRs decreased 6.4% in women with T1D (p-trend = 0.35) and 25.6% in women with T2D (p-trend <0.05) but increased 2.3% in women without diabetes (p-trend = 0.08). Fracture IRs decreased in men with both diabetes types and only in women with T2D, highlighting the need for further attention behind the stable trend observed in women with T1D. © 2023 The Authors. JBMR Plus published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

Celebration of a century of insulin therapy in children with type 1 diabetes

Insulin is the key anabolic hormone of metabolism, with clear effects on glycaemia. Near-complete insulin deficiency occurs in type 1 diabetes (T1D), the predominant form affecting children, and uniformly fatal until the discovery of insulin. By the early 20th century, it was known that T1D was caused by the lack of a factor from pancreatic islets, but isolation of this substance proved elusive. In 1921, an unusual team in Toronto comprising a surgeon, a medical student, a physiologist and a biochemist successfully isolated a glucose-lowering pancreatic endocrine secretion. They treated an emaciated 14-year-old boy in 1922, restoring his health and allowing him to live for another 13 years. Thus began an era of remarkable progress and partnership between academia and the pharmaceutical industry to produce drugs that benefit sick people. The Toronto team received the 1923 Nobel Prize, and more Nobel Prizes for work with insulin followed: for elucidation of its amino acid sequence and crystalline structure, and for its role in the development of radioimmunoassays to measure circulating hormone concentrations. Human insulin was the first hormone synthesised by recombinant methods, permitting modifications to enable improved absorption rates and alterations in duration of action. Coupled with delivery via insulin pens, programmable pumps and continuous glucose monitors, metabolic control and quality of life vastly improved and T1D in children was converted from uniformly fatal to a manageable chronic condition. We describe this remarkable ongoing story as insulin remains a paradigm for human ingenuity to heal nature's maladies.

Efficacy and Safety of Tirzepatide in Adults With Type 2 Diabetes: A Perspective for Primary Care Providers

This article reviews the efficacy and safety data of tirzepatide, a once-weekly, novel glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide and glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist approved in the United States, the European Union, and other regions for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. All doses of tirzepatide demonstrated superiority in reducing A1C and body weight from baseline versus placebo or active comparators. The safety profile of tirzepatide was consistent with that of the GLP-1 receptor agonist class, with mild to moderate and transient gastrointestinal side effects being the most common adverse events. With clinically and statistically significant reductions in A1C and body weight without increased risk of hypoglycemia in various populations, tirzepatide has demonstrated potential as a first-in-class treatment option for many people with type 2 diabetes.

Insulin: evolution of insulin formulations and their application in clinical practice over 100 years

The first preparation of insulin extracted from a pancreas and made suitable for use in humans after purification was achieved 100 years ago in Toronto, an epoch-making achievement, which has ultimately provided a life-giving treatment for millions of people worldwide. The earliest animal-derived formulations were short-acting and contained many impurities that caused adverse reactions, thereby limiting their therapeutic potential. However, since then, insulin production and purification improved with enhanced technologies, along with a full understanding of the insulin molecule structure. The availability of radio-immunoassays contributed to the unravelling of the physiology of glucose homeostasis, ultimately leading to the adoption of rational models of insulin replacement. The introduction of recombinant DNA technologies has since resulted in the era of both rapid- and long-acting human insulin analogues administered via the subcutaneous route which better mimic the physiology of insulin secretion, leading to the modern basal-bolus regimen. These advances, in combination with improved education and technologies for glucose monitoring, enable people with diabetes to better meet individual glycaemic goals with a lower risk of hypoglycaemia. While the prevalence of diabetes continues to rise globally, it is important to recognise the scientific endeavour that has led to insulin remaining the cornerstone of diabetes management, on the centenary of its first successful use in humans.

Development of an Insulin Pen is a Patient-Centric Multidisciplinary Undertaking: A Commentary

The goal of human-centered insulin pen design is to relieve the treatment burden of a chronic condition and help affected individuals to feel free of disease. The patient as well as their entire ecosystem should be considered. At Novo Nordisk A/S, we believe that embedding human-centered design at the heart of our development processes is best achieved with multidisciplinary experts in-house to work alongside product development teams and, importantly, the end user. Novo Nordisk introduced the first commercially available insulin pen in 1985 and has continued to develop reusable/durable and prefilled insulin pens to meet different patient needs, through to the latest NovoPen 6 and NovoPen Echo Plus with SMART technology. Human-centered design is essential for delivering meaningful and practical solutions for individuals with diabetes.

Insulin discovery: A pivotal point in medical history

The discovery of insulin in 1921 - due to the efforts of the Canadian research team based in Toronto - has been a landmark achievement in the history of medicine. Lives of people with diabetes were changed forever, considering that in the pre-insulin era this was a deadly condition. Insulin, right after its discovery, became the first hormone to be purified for human use, the first to be unraveled in its amino acid sequence and to be synthetized by DNA-recombinant technique, the first to be modified in its amino acid sequence to modify its duration of action. As such the discovery of insulin represents a pivotal point in medical history. Since the early days of its production, insulin has been improved in its pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties in the attempt to faithfully reproduce diurnal physiologic plasma insulin fluctuations. The evolution of insulin molecule has been paralleled by evolution in the way the hormone is administered. Once-weekly insulins will be available soon, and glucose-responsive "smart" insulins start showing their potential in early clinical studies. The first century of insulin as therapy was marked by relentless search for better formulations, a search that has not stopped yet. New technologies may have, indeed, the potential to provide further improvement of safety and efficacy of insulin therapy and, therefore, contribute to improvement of the quality of life of people with diabetes.

The Review of Insulin Pens-Past, Present, and Look to the Future

Currently, there are about 150-200 million diabetic patients treated with insulin globally. The year 2021 is special because the 100th anniversary of the insulin discovery is being celebrated. It is a good occasion to sum up the insulin pen technology invention and improvement which are nowadays the leading mode of an insulin delivery. Even though so many years have passed, insulin is still administered subcutaneously, that is why devices to deliver it are of great importance. Insulin pens have evolved only through the last decades (the reusable, durable pens, and the disposable, prefilled pens) and modern smart insulin pens have been developed in the last few years, and both types of the devices compared to traditional syringes and vials are more convenient, discrete in use, have better dosing accuracy, and improve adherence. In this review, we will focus on the history of insulin pens and their improvement over the previous decades.

Patient Preferences for Pharmacological Diabetes Treatment Among People with Diabetes in Spain: A Discrete Choice Experiment

INTRODUCTION

The aim of the project was to describe the preferences related to the medication attributes of people with diabetes mellitus (DM) treated in Spain.

METHODS

The project was carried out in four different phases. In phase A, a Steering Committee defined and selected a total of 18 attributes for treating DM and grouped them into four categories: health outcomes, adverse events, treatment characteristics and cost of treatment. In phase B, a questionnaire according to a discrete choice experiment (DCE) methodology was developed. In phase C, the online DCE survey was sent to members of associations of people with DM from the Spanish Diabetes Federation (FEDE). Finally, in phase D, the results were discussed in a deliberative process.

RESULTS

Of the 238 participants who completed the questionnaire (May-September 2020), 231 were included (mean age, 58 years; males, 62%). The DCE results showed that the best-valued category was health outcomes (39.67%), followed by adverse events (26.85%), treatment characteristics (21.70%) and treatment costs (11.77%). Ten of 18 attributes had a significant effect on participants' choice (p < 0.05) and the highest relative importance value: blood pressure reduction (12.82%), hypoglycaemia (12.77%), HbA_1c level reduction (8.54%), cost of the medication (8.13%), needle/tablet size (7.20%), weight change (6.72%), risk of genitourinary infections (6.36%), gastrointestinal problems (5.82%), improved kidney function (5.53%) and administration route (5.41%).

CONCLUSIONS

People with DM prefer a treatment that generates benefits in measurable health effects (reducing blood pressure and HbA_1c level, while not risking hypoglycaemia) and a convenient route of administration. Considering the preferences of people with DM could generate better clinical results and therapeutic adherence, reducing morbidity, mortality and disease burden.

Trends in Insulin Types and Devices Used by Adults With Type 2 Diabetes in the United States, 2016 to 2020

IMPORTANCE

Despite rising costs and public scrutiny devoted to insulin, less is known regarding recent trends in its ambulatory use in the United States.

OBJECTIVE

To characterize trends in ambulatory insulin use, overall and based on insulin characteristics, among adults with type 2 diabetes in the United States from January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2020.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This serial cross-sectional study included patients whose data were collected in IQVIA's National Disease and Therapeutic Index (NDTI), a 2-stage, all-payer, nationally representative audit of outpatient care. Approximately 4800 physicians each calendar quarter completed a form for 2 consecutive days regarding visits for each of their patients, including diagnoses, treatments, and demographic information. Data were collected from January 2016 through December 2020.

EXPOSURES

Ambulatory use of insulin.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Nationally representative projections for ambulatory use of insulin (ie, treatment visits), overall and aggregated by insulin molecule (insulins regular, neutral protamine Hagedorn [NPH], lispro, glulisine, glargine, detemir, degludec, and aspart), delivery devices (vials/syringes or pens), therapeutic class (short-acting, rapid-acting, long-acting, intermediate-acting, and premixed insulin), insulin type (human, analog, and biosimilar), and date of approval (newer: before 2010; and older: after 2010).

RESULTS

There were 27 860 691 insulin treatment visits between 2016 and 2020. Among all patient encounters that indicated use of insulin in 2020, 1 989 154 (43.9%) were among those aged 60 to 74 years; 2 372 629 (52.4%) among men; 2 646 247 (58.4%) among White patients; 811 639 (17.9%) among Black patients; and 701 912 (15.5%) among Hispanic patients. Insulin glargine was the most frequently used insulin from 2016 to 2020, accounting for approximately half of treatment visits (eg, 2020: 2.6 of 4.9 million visits; 95% CI, 2.1-3.1 million). Among insulin classes, long-acting insulin accounted for approximately two-thirds of treatment visits during this period (eg, 2020: 3.7 million visits; 95% CI, 3.0-4.4 million). Treatment visits for insulin pens increased from 36.1% in 2016 (2.2 of 6.0 million visits; 95% CI, 1.7-2.7 million) to 58.7% in 2020 (2.9 million visits; 95% CI, 2.3-3.5 million), while use of insulin vials/syringes declined in parallel. Analog insulin use predominated and accounted for more than 80% of total treatment visits across all years (eg, 2020: 4.3 million visits; 95% CI, 3.4-5.1 million). Newer insulins were increasingly used, from 18.1% of total treatment visits in 2016 (1.1 million visits; 95% CI, 0.8-1.4 million) to 40.9% in 2020 (2.0 million visits; 95% CI, 1.5-2.5 million). The use of biosimilar insulin, which was first approved in 2015, increased from 2.6% in 2017 (0.1 of 5.3 million visits; 95% CI, 0.04-0.2 million) to 8.2% in 2020 (0.4 million visits; 95% CI, 0.2-0.6 million) of total insulin treatment visits. The total number of insulin treatment visits declined from a peak of 6.0 million visits in 2016 to a nadir of 4.9 million visits in 2020 (approximately 18% decline).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this study, ambulatory insulin use in the United States during the past 5 years remained dominated by the use of insulin analogs and insulin pen delivery devices, with increasing uptake of newer products as they have been brought to market.

Disposal of Used Pens and Needles from Diabetes Patients Perspective

Introduction

Diabetes as lifelong chronic disease requires pharmacological treatment using plastic pens and needles. Proper disposal of used pens and needles have impact not just on health but environment as well. In 2020 there will be 3.2 million pens used and disposed in Bosnia and Herzegovina resulting in over 600 tons of this waste. Worldwide problem is related to proper disposal of used insulin pens and sharps.

Aim

To investigate and evaluate what are the attitudes, knowledge and practices on insulin pens and needles disposal among diabetes patients in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Methods

The research was conducted in five cities in Bosnia and Herzegovina in period December 2019-January 2020 using questionnaire consisted of 28 questions distributed among patients with diabetes through their local patient associations.

Results

Total 250 diabetes patients participated. 40.4% inject medicines for 2 times per day and 37.6% for three and more times a day. Patients have not been instructed on proper disposal of used pens or needles in 67.6% and 66% respectively. The most appropriate place to dispose used pens is pharmacies and 90% of respondents would participate in program of collecting used pens if one exists. 75.6% of respondents consider improper disposal of pens and needles as healthcare problem, 18.8% see this as ecological problem and for 4% of them this is not a problem at all.

Conclusion

Current practice of disposing used insulin pens and sharps is improper. Patients are aware of health and environmental risk. There is a huge opportunity for pharmacists and other healthcare provides to provide better information and counseling diabetes patients on this topic.

Developing Insulin Delivery Devices with Glucose Responsiveness

Individuals with type 1 and advanced type 2 diabetes require daily insulin therapy to maintain blood glucose levels in normoglycemic ranges to prevent associated morbidity and mortality. Optimal insulin delivery should offer both precise dosing in response to real-time blood glucose levels as well as a feasible and low-burden administration route to promote long-term adherence. A series of glucose-responsive insulin delivery mechanisms and devices have been reported to increase patient compliance while mitigating the risk of hypoglycemia. This review discusses currently available insulin delivery devices, overviews recent developments towards the generation of glucose-responsive delivery systems, and provides commentary on the opportunities and barriers ahead regarding the integration and translation of current glucose-responsive insulin delivery designs.

A Multicenter, Prospective, Observational, Open-Label Study of the Safety and Comfort of Gensulin® Delivery Device Use in a Large Cohort of Adult and Elderly Patients with Type 2 Diabetes

Insulin treatment is necessary for many patients with type 2 diabetes, and its delivery must be safe and comfortable. This study evaluated patients' safety and comfort when using a Gensulin® delivery device, GensuPen (Bioton), a reusable insulin pen device for injecting Gensulin® insulin among adult and elderly patients with type 2 diabetes. This was a 4-week multicenter, prospective, observational, open-label study in patients with diabetes mellitus type 2 who have recently started using a GensuPen. Overall, 10,309 patients (mean age: 63 ± 12.0 years; 47.9% female) were analyzed in this study. Of these, 2.5% had used an insulin delivery device before, and for 97.5%, GensuPen was the first delivery device they had used. Most (87.8%) of the patients rated the GensuPen as very good in setting the dose, 92.0% in confirmation of successful insulin administration, 80.9% in trigger location, and 75.0% in force needed for injection. The overall safety of the GensuPen use was high since severe hypoglycemia occurred only in 0.2% of the studied patients. There were 0.6% adverse events, none of which were serious. This real-life observation data shows that the GensuPen was well accepted and safe in this large patient population of adult and elderly patients with type 2 diabetes.

Evolution of Insulin Delivery Devices: From Syringes, Pens, and Pumps to DIY Artificial Pancreas

The year 2021 will mark 100 years since the discovery of insulin. Insulin, the first medication to be discovered for diabetes, is still the safest and most potent glucose-lowering therapy. The major challenge of insulin despite its efficacy has been the occurrence of hypoglycemia, which has resulted in sub-optimal dosages being prescribed in the vast majority of patients. Popular devices used for insulin administration are syringes, pens, and pumps. An artificial pancreas (AP) with a closed-loop delivery system with > 95% time in range is believed to soon become a reality. The development of closed-loop delivery systems has gained momentum with recent advances in continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and computer algorithms. This review discusses the evolution of syringes, disposable, durable pens and connected pens, needles, tethered and patch insulin pumps, bionic pancreas, alternate controller-enabled infusion (ACE) pumps, and do-it-yourself artificial pancreas systems (DIY-APS).

A Review of Practical Issues on the Use of Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists for the Management of Type 2 Diabetes

Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) are well established as effective treatments for patients with type 2 diabetes. GLP-1 RAs augment insulin secretion and suppress glucagon release via the stimulation of GLP-1 receptors. Although all GLP-1 RAs share the same underlying mechanism of action, they differ in terms of formulations, administration, injection devices and dosages. With six GLP-1 RAs currently available in Europe (namely, immediate-release exenatide, lixisenatide, liraglutide; prolonged-release exenatide, dulaglutide and semaglutide), each with its own characteristics and administration requirements, physicians caring for patients in their routine practice face the challenge of being cognizant of all this information so they are able to select the agent that is most suitable for their patient and use it in an efficient and optimal way. The objective of this review is to bring together practical information on the use of these GLP-1 RAs that reflects their approved use.Funding: Eli Lilly and Company.Plain Language Summary: Plain language summary available for this article.

Injecting without pressing a button: An exploratory study of a shield-triggered injection mechanism

AIMS

To evaluate the injection success and user perception of a shield-triggered pen-injector mechanism.

METHODS

The trial (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02627287) was an exploratory, two-centre, one-visit, open-label, randomized controlled trial conducted in Germany in 150 injection-experienced individuals with type 1 or type 2 diabetes. Participants self-administered subcutaneous injections of a placebo solution using a prototype shield-triggered pen-injector, DV3316 (Novo Nordisk, Bagsvaerd, Denmark), and FlexPen (Novo Nordisk, Bagsvaerd, Denmark). Injection success was evaluated on a yes/no basis by the investigator. Participant confidence, leakage of fluid and pain were evaluated after each injection. Pain and device experience were assessed after completion of all injections with each pen-injector. Overall preference was assessed after completion of all injections with both pen-injectors.

RESULTS

Injection success was high with both pen-injectors (97.0%, DV3316 vs 99.7%, FlexPen). Participant confidence in dose delivery was similar for the two devices (88% of injections with DV3316 vs 81% with FlexPen were scored as "extremely confident"). The median injection pain score on a visual analogue scale (0-100) was 3 with DV3316 vs 4 with FlexPen after each injection, and 4 with DV3316 vs 5 with FlexPen after all injections with each device. After all injections were completed, 55% of participants reported an overall preference for DV3316 vs 21% for FlexPen.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates that injection-experienced individuals can achieve a high injection success rate with a shield-triggered pen-injector, with similar patient confidence and injection pain compared with FlexPen.

Half-Unit Insulin Pens: Disease Management in Patients With Diabetes Who Are Sensitive to Insulin

BACKGROUND

Insulin pens represent a significant technological advancement in diabetes management. While the vast majority have been designed with 1U-dosing increments, improved accuracy and precision facilitated by half-unit increments may be particularly significant in specific patients who are sensitive to insulin. These include patients with low insulin requirements and in those requiring more precise dose adjustments, such as the pediatric patient population. This review summarized functional characteristics of insulin half-unit pens (HUPs) and their effect on user experience.

METHODS

The literature search was restricted to articles published in English between January 1, 2000, and January 1, 2015. A total of 17 publications met the set criteria and were included in the review.

RESULTS

Overall, studies outlined characteristics for 4 insulin HUPs. Based on their functionality, the pens were generally similar and all met the ISO 11608-1 criteria for accuracy. However, some had specific advantageous features in terms of size, weight, design, dialing torque, and injection force. Although limited, the currently available user preference studies in children and adolescents with diabetes and their carers suggest that the selection of an HUP is likely to be influenced by a combination of factors such as these, in addition to the prescribed insulin and dosing regimen.

CONCLUSIONS

Insulin HUPs are likely to be a key diabetes management tool for patients who are sensitive to insulin; specific pen features may further advance diabetes management in these populations.

A novel pen-based Bluetooth-enabled insulin delivery system with insulin dose tracking and advice

INTRODUCTION

Diabetes is growing in prevalence internationally. As more individuals require insulin as part of their treatment, technology evolves to optimize delivery, improve adherence, and reduce dosing errors. Insulin pens outperform vial and syringe in simplicity, dosing accuracy, and user preference. Bolus advisors improve dosing confidence and treatment adherence. The InPen System offers a novel approach to treatment via a wireless pen that syncs to a mobile application featuring a bolus advisor, enabling convenient insulin dose tracking and more accurate bolus advice among other features. Areas covered: Existing technology for insulin delivery and bolus advice are reviewed. The mechanics and functionality of the InPen device are delineated. Findings from formative testing and usability studies of the InPen system are reported. Future directions for the InPen system in the treatment of diabetes are discussed. Expert opinion: Diabetes management is complex and largely data-driven. The InPen System offers a promising new opportunity to avail insulin pen-users of features known to improve treatment efficacy, which have otherwise primarily been available to those using pumps. Given that the majority of insulin users do not use insulin pumps, the InPen System is poised to improve glucose control in a significant portion of the diabetes population.

NovoPen Echo(®) insulin delivery device

The introduction of insulin pen devices has provided easier, well-tolerated, and more convenient treatment regimens for patients with diabetes mellitus. When compared with vial and syringe regimens, insulin pens offer a greater clinical efficacy, improved quality of life, and increased dosing accuracy, particularly at low doses. The portable and discreet nature of pen devices reduces the burden on the patient, facilitates adherence, and subsequently contributes to the improvement in glycemic control. NovoPen Echo^® is one of the latest members of the NovoPen^® family that has been specifically designed for the pediatric population and is the first to combine half-unit increment (=0.5 U of insulin) dosing with a simple memory function. The half-unit increment dosing amendments and accurate injection of 0.5 U of insulin are particularly beneficial for children (and insulin-sensitive adults/elders), who often require small insulin doses. The memory function can be used to record the time and amount of the last dose, reducing the fear of double dosing or missing a dose. The memory function also provides parents with extra confidence and security that their child is taking insulin at the correct doses and times. NovoPen Echo is a lightweight, durable insulin delivery pen; it is available in two different colors, which may help to distinguish between different types of insulin, providing more confidence for both users and caregivers. Studies have demonstrated a high level of patient satisfaction, with 80% of users preferring NovoPen Echo to other pediatric insulin pens.

Safe and Effective Use of the Once Weekly Dulaglutide Single-Dose Pen in Injection-Naïve Patients With Type 2 Diabetes

BACKGROUND

This 4-week, phase 3b, multicenter, open-label, single-arm, outpatient study demonstrated the safe and effective use of the dulaglutide single-dose pen containing 0.5 mL of placebo for subcutaneous injection in injection-naïve adult patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D), with A1C ≤ 8.5% (69 mmol/mol), BMI ≥ 23 kg/m2 and ≤ 45 kg/m(2).

METHOD

Patients completed a modified self-injecting subscale of the Diabetes Fear of Injecting and Self-Testing Questionnaire (mD-FISQ) and were trained to self-inject with the single-dose pen. Patients completed the initial self-injection at the site, injected at home for 2 subsequent weeks, and returned to the site for the final injection. The initial and final self-injections were evaluated for success; the final (initial) self-injection success rate was the primary (secondary) outcome measure, and the primary (secondary) objective was to demonstrate this success rate as being significantly greater than 80%. Patients recorded their level of pain after each injection. After the final injection, patients completed the mD-FISQ and the Medication Delivery Device Assessment Battery (MDDAB) to assess their perceptions of the single-dose pen, including ease of use and experience with the device.

RESULTS

Among 211 patients (mean age: 61 years), the primary objective was met, with a final injection success rate of 99.1% (95% CI: 96.6% to 99.7%). Among 214 patients, the initial injection success rate was 97.2% (95% CI: 94.0% to 98.7%), meeting the key secondary objective. Overall, most patients (>96%) found the device easy to use, were satisfied with the device, and would be willing to continue to use the single-dose pen after the study. There was a significant reduction (P < .001) from baseline to study end in patients' fear of self-injecting, as measured by the mD-FISQ.

CONCLUSIONS

The dulaglutide single-dose pen was found to be a safe and effective device for use by patients with T2D who were injection-naïve. A positive injection experience is an important factor for patients and providers when initiating injectable therapy.

Interventions to improve safe and effective medicines use by consumers: an overview of systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

Many systematic reviews exist on interventions to improve safe and effective medicines use by consumers, but research is distributed across diseases, populations and settings. The scope and focus of such reviews also vary widely, creating challenges for decision-makers seeking to inform decisions by using the evidence on consumers' medicines use.This is an update of a 2011 overview of systematic reviews, which synthesises the evidence, irrespective of disease, medicine type, population or setting, on the effectiveness of interventions to improve consumers' medicines use.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of interventions which target healthcare consumers to promote safe and effective medicines use, by synthesising review-level evidence.

METHODS

SEARCH METHODS

We included systematic reviews published on the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects. We identified relevant reviews by handsearching databases from their start dates to March 2012.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We screened and ranked reviews based on relevance to consumers' medicines use, using criteria developed for this overview.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standardised forms to extract data, and assessed reviews for methodological quality using the AMSTAR tool. We used standardised language to summarise results within and across reviews; and gave bottom-line statements about intervention effectiveness. Two review authors screened and selected reviews, and extracted and analysed data. We used a taxonomy of interventions to categorise reviews and guide syntheses.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 75 systematic reviews of varied methodological quality. Reviews assessed interventions with diverse aims including support for behaviour change, risk minimisation and skills acquisition. No reviews aimed to promote systems-level consumer participation in medicines-related activities. Medicines adherence was the most frequently-reported outcome, but others such as knowledge, clinical and service-use outcomes were also reported. Adverse events were less commonly identified, while those associated with the interventions themselves, or costs, were rarely reported.Looking across reviews, for most outcomes, medicines self-monitoring and self-management programmes appear generally effective to improve medicines use, adherence, adverse events and clinical outcomes; and to reduce mortality in people self-managing antithrombotic therapy. However, some participants were unable to complete these interventions, suggesting they may not be suitable for everyone.Other promising interventions to improve adherence and other key medicines-use outcomes, which require further investigation to be more certain of their effects, include:· simplified dosing regimens: with positive effects on adherence;· interventions involving pharmacists in medicines management, such as medicines reviews (with positive effects on adherence and use, medicines problems and clinical outcomes) and pharmaceutical care services (consultation between pharmacist and patient to resolve medicines problems, develop a care plan and provide follow-up; with positive effects on adherence and knowledge).Several other strategies showed some positive effects, particularly relating to adherence, and other outcomes, but their effects were less consistent overall and so need further study. These included:· delayed antibiotic prescriptions: effective to decrease antibiotic use but with mixed effects on clinical outcomes, adverse effects and satisfaction;· practical strategies like reminders, cues and/or organisers, reminder packaging and material incentives: with positive, although somewhat mixed effects on adherence;· education delivered with self-management skills training, counselling, support, training or enhanced follow-up; information and counselling delivered together; or education/information as part of pharmacist-delivered packages of care: with positive effects on adherence, medicines use, clinical outcomes and knowledge, but with mixed effects in some studies;· financial incentives: with positive, but mixed, effects on adherence.Several strategies also showed promise in promoting immunisation uptake, but require further study to be more certain of their effects. These included organisational interventions; reminders and recall; financial incentives; home visits; free vaccination; lay health worker interventions; and facilitators working with physicians to promote immunisation uptake. Education and/or information strategies also showed some positive but even less consistent effects on immunisation uptake, and need further assessment of effectiveness and investigation of heterogeneity.There are many different potential pathways through which consumers' use of medicines could be targeted to improve outcomes, and simple interventions may be as effective as complex strategies. However, no single intervention assessed was effective to improve all medicines-use outcomes across all diseases, medicines, populations or settings.Even where interventions showed promise, the assembled evidence often only provided part of the picture: for example, simplified dosing regimens seem effective for improving adherence, but there is not yet sufficient information to identify an optimal regimen.In some instances interventions appear ineffective: for example, the evidence suggests that directly observed therapy may be generally ineffective for improving treatment completion, adherence or clinical outcomes.In other cases, interventions may have variable effects across outcomes. As an example, strategies providing information or education as single interventions appear ineffective to improve medicines adherence or clinical outcomes, but may be effective to improve knowledge; an important outcome for promoting consumers' informed medicines choices.Despite a doubling in the number of reviews included in this updated overview, uncertainty still exists about the effectiveness of many interventions, and the evidence on what works remains sparse for several populations, including children and young people, carers, and people with multimorbidity.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This overview presents evidence from 75 reviews that have synthesised trials and other studies evaluating the effects of interventions to improve consumers' medicines use.Systematically assembling the evidence across reviews allows identification of effective or promising interventions to improve consumers' medicines use, as well as those for which the evidence indicates ineffectiveness or uncertainty.Decision makers faced with implementing interventions to improve consumers' medicines use can use this overview to inform decisions about which interventions may be most promising to improve particular outcomes. The intervention taxonomy may also assist people to consider the strategies available in relation to specific purposes, for example, gaining skills or being involved in decision making. Researchers and funders can use this overview to identify where more research is needed and assess its priority. The limitations of the available literature due to the lack of evidence for important outcomes and important populations, such as people with multimorbidity, should also be considered in practice and policy decisions.

Safety and patient perception of an insulin pen with simple memory function for children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes--the REMIND study

OBJECTIVES

NovoPen Echo * is a durable pediatric insulin pen incorporating half-unit dosing starting at 0.5 units and a last-dose memory function. The REMIND † (Rating the Effects of Memory function in pediatric INsulin Devices) study primarily examined the safety of this new device by collecting data on technical complaints (TCs) related to adverse reactions (ARs) during use in a clinical setting.

METHODS

REMIND was an observational, multicenter study involving patients with type 1 diabetes on injection therapy, aged 2-18 years, from Canada, Finland, Israel and Sweden. Questionnaires and case report forms were completed at baseline and after using NovoPen Echo for 12-18 weeks.

RESULTS

In total, 358 patients participated and 315 completed. No serious ARs were reported. Three ARs related to TCs were reported, equated to one every 29 patient-years. Most patients found it 'easy' or 'somewhat easy' to read amount (99%) and hours lapsed (95%) since last dose using the memory function. The proportion of children self-injecting was significantly higher (71%) compared with those on previous device (66%, p=0.006). 80% of physicians answers reported they could train users in ≤10 minutes.

CONCLUSIONS

Only three device safety events were reported for NovoPen Echo. Physicians found it easy and quick to educate users. Patients/caregivers missed fewer injections and reported greater confidence in managing their insulin injections. As this was an observational study without controls or centralized laboratory testing, caution should be used in interpreting outcomes in glycemic control. Further studies are required to examine the effects of features such as memory function and half-unit dosing on HbA1c and hypoglycemia over a longer time period.

What can we learn from patient-reported outcomes of insulin pen devices?

Although a variety of effective treatment options are available for patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes, many patients in the United States have difficulty reaching their glycemic goals. Patient adherence to insulin therapy, which often involves self-administered subcutaneous injections of insulin using either a vial and syringe or an insulin pen device, is often poor. Various factors associated with the type of injection device have been shown to influence the rate of patient adherence to insulin therapy. This article reviews patient-reported outcome (PRO) evidence from pediatric and adult studies that compared insulin pen devices with vial and syringe use. In a majority of these cases, patients preferred the pen devices over vial and syringe, stating advantages such as ease of use, convenience, greater confidence in their ability to properly administer the drug, and a greater perceived social acceptance. The pens were considered less painful than syringes and were associated with less needle fear. In addition, PRO evidence has directed pen technology design, leading to development of more advanced insulin pen devices. By appreciating the correlation between adherence to insulin regimens and a patient's device preference, clinicians can make improved treatment recommendations to facilitate achievement and maintenance of glycemic targets.

Insulin delivery by injection in children and adolescents with diabetes

Type 1 diabetes is treated with insulin, which has traditionally been delivered by vial and syringe. However, for many patients, dosing inaccuracy, pain, anxiety, inconvenience, and social acceptability present barriers to this method of administration (1-5). This has contributed to the increased popularity of alternative insulin delivery systems, including pen delivery devices (4, 6). Evidence suggests that discreet devices, such as insulin pens, facilitate adherence to intensive insulin therapy regimens, help improve lifestyle flexibility, and reduce injection pain compared with the conventional syringe-based regimens, as shown in studies in adults and adolescents (7). In addition, compared with the vial and syringe method of insulin administration, pens may provide more accurate dosing - which is particularly important in children - thereby improving short-term blood glucose control and potentially improving long-term outcomes (5, 8). Children, in particular, may benefit from insulin pens that are simple to use as adherence issues may be more evident in this patient group (9). Pens for insulin delivery in children with type 1 diabetes have been used for a long time in Europe, and have recently gained in popularity in many other places around the world (4, 10). Furthermore, the conventional vial and syringe method of insulin delivery is beginning to be considered as obsolete (11). Moreover, there is a continued drive to improve insulin pen technology, to refine and enhance the functionality and usability of these pens. However, despite recent advances in pen design and function, the selection of pens available especially for children is limited.

Utilities and disutilities for attributes of injectable treatments for type 2 diabetes

INTRODUCTION

Although cost-utility models are frequently used to estimate treatment outcomes for type 2 diabetes, utilities are not available for key attributes of injectable treatments. The purpose of this study was to identify the utility or disutility of three injection-related attributes (dose frequency, dose flexibility, injection site reaction) that may influence patient preference.

METHODS

Patients with type 2 diabetes in Scotland completed standard gamble (SG) interviews to assess the utility of hypothetical health states and their own current health state. The EQ-5D, PGWB, IWQOL-Lite, and QIDS were also administered. Construct validity and differences among health states were examined.

RESULTS

A total of 151 patients completed interviews. Of the three injection-related attributes, dose frequency was the only attribute with a statistically significant impact on utility (in a multiple regression model, p = 0.01). Weekly injections were associated with an average added utility of 0.023 in comparison to everyday injections. Flexible dosing and injection site reactions resulted in somewhat smaller utility shifts that were in the expected directions (+0.006 and -0.011, respectively). SG utility of current health (mean = 0.897) demonstrated construct validity through statistically significant correlations with patient-reported outcome measures.

DISCUSSION

The three injection attributes were associated with small utility shifts in the expected directions. Dose frequency appears to be the most important of the three attributes from the patients' perspective. The vignette-based SG approach was feasible and useful for assessing added utility or disutility of injection-related attributes associated with treatments for type 2 diabetes.

Needle with a novel attachment versus conventional screw-thread needles: a preference and usability test among adults with diabetes and impaired manual dexterity

BACKGROUND

NovoTwist(®) (Novo Nordisk A/S, Bagsværd, Denmark) is an insulin pen needle that features a novel attachment and detachment system. The aim of this test was to assess overall preference and handling of NovoTwist compared with conventional screw-thread needles in people with type 1 or type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

One hundred twenty adults with type 1 or type 2 diabetes and manual dexterity dysfunction who were currently self-injecting with an insulin pen were included in this open-label, randomized, crossover test. Participants were stratified according to the impact that manual dexterity problems had on their ability to inject insulin (1 = no effect at all; 4 = a lot), and those rated as 1 were excluded from subanalyses because of low numbers. Following instruction, participants attached the needle to Next Generation FlexPen(®) (Novo Nordisk A/S), made an injection into a foam cushion, and detached the needle; this process was repeated three times with NovoTwist and the participant's current screw-thread needle (or NovoFine(®) [Novo Nordisk A/S]) in a random order. Responses to questions on user experience with each needle were subsequently recorded on a 6-point rating scale (1 = very difficult; 6 = very easy).

RESULTS

Significantly more respondents had a preference for NovoTwist (79%) compared with the conventional screw-thread needles (21%, P < 0.001). Significantly more respondents preferred NovoTwist for both ease of attachment (80%, P < 0.001) and ease of detachment (74%, P < 0.001). Most respondents found NovoTwist the most appropriate needle for performing everyday injections (71%, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Such preference by patients has a positive impact on the treatment of diabetes as NovoTwist may alleviate the burden of performing everyday injections through its ease of use.

A review of 25 years' experience with the NovoPen family of insulin pens in the management of diabetes mellitus

NovoPen, the first insulin pen, was introduced in 1985. This review article is an update of a review paper published in 2006 on 20 years' use of the NovoPen family of insulin pens in the management of diabetes mellitus. The literature searches conducted in the earlier review article were updated with search results for new articles published since April 2005. This was followed by an iterative search of references cited in identified publications and by searches of abstracts from proceedings of major international diabetes conferences since 2005. Most of the original studies identified in the 2006 review showed that insulin regimens using the NovoPen family of insulin pens were at least as effective (and in some cases superior) in maintaining glycaemic control and were as safe (in terms of hypoglycaemia) as conventional insulin regimens employing vials and syringes. Most patients preferred the various NovoPen insulin pens over vials and syringes, with some evidence suggesting that the use of discreet devices, such as those of the NovoPen family, facilitates intensive insulin therapy regimens, thereby helping to improve lifestyle flexibility. The new search results showed that the current generation of the device for the adult population, NovoPen 4, retains these benefits and further meets patients' needs by improving ease of use, convenience and discretion, which may be particularly important for those with manual dexterity, visual or auditory impairments. There was also evidence that healthcare professionals would be more likely to recommend NovoPen 4 to their patients than other devices. The recently introduced NovoPen Echo, designed specifically for the paediatric population, combines half-increment dosing with a memory function that can be used to retrieve information about the time and amount of the last dose, potentially reducing the fear of double dosing or missing a dose. Evidence obtained from the new searches suggested that paediatric patients, their parents and healthcare professionals were highly satisfied with NovoPen Echo overall, with most paediatric patients rating it their favourite pen compared with other insulin pens. In conclusion, new data published over the last 5 years on the use of NovoPen devices add to the large body of published evidence supporting the patient-related benefits of durable insulin injection pens in the treatment of diabetes since the first such pen was introduced in 1985. Together, the benefits of NovoPen are considered likely to improve both patients' quality of life and their compliance with therapy.

Evolution of diabetes insulin delivery devices

The first manufactured insulin pump was introduced in the 1970s and the first insulin pens in 1985; since then, many improvements have been made to both devices. The advantages of pens over syringes have been confirmed in numerous studies and include greater accuracy, ease of use, patient satisfaction, quality of life, and adherence. United States claims database analyses indicate that the improved adherence made possible by use of an insulin pen has the potential to reduce diabetes care costs when compared with using a vial and syringe. Features of certain advanced pump models include the ability to connect wirelessly to a blood glucose meter or to a subcutaneous interstitial glucose sensor for semicontinuous glucose-driven insulin rate adjustment. A new trend in the design of insulin pumps is the tubing-free patch pump that adheres directly to the skin. The low rate of insulin pen usage in the United States compared with European countries and the fact that many patients report that they are not offered the option of an insulin pen by their physician suggest that there is a need to increase patient and provider awareness of the currently available devices for insulin administration.

Cost minimization analysis of different growth hormone pen devices based on time-and-motion simulations

Background

Numerous pen devices are available to administer recombinant Human Growth Hormone (rhGH), and both patients and health plans have varying issues to consider when selecting a particular product and device for daily use. Therefore, the present study utilized multi-dimensional product analysis to assess potential time involvement, required weekly administration steps, and utilization costs relative to daily rhGH administration.

Methods

Study objectives were to conduct 1) Time-and-Motion (TM) simulations in a randomized block design that allowed time and steps comparisons related to rhGH preparation, administration and storage, and 2) a Cost Minimization Analysis (CMA) relative to opportunity and supply costs. Nurses naïve to rhGH administration and devices were recruited to evaluate four rhGH pen devices (2 in liquid form, 2 requiring reconstitution) via TM simulations. Five videotaped and timed trials for each product were evaluated based on: 1) Learning (initial use instructions), 2) Preparation (arrange device for use), 3) Administration (actual simulation manikin injection), and 4) Storage (maintain product viability between doses), in addition to assessment of steps required for weekly use. The CMA applied micro-costing techniques related to opportunity costs for caregivers (categorized as wages), non-drug medical supplies, and drug product costs.

Results

Norditropin^® NordiFlex and Norditropin^® NordiPen (NNF and NNP, Novo Nordisk, Inc., Bagsværd, Denmark) took less weekly Total Time (p < 0.05) to use than either of the comparator products, Genotropin^® Pen (GTP, Pfizer, Inc, New York, New York) or HumatroPen^® (HTP, Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, Indiana). Time savings were directly related to differences in new package Preparation times (NNF (1.35 minutes), NNP (2.48 minutes) GTP (4.11 minutes), HTP (8.64 minutes), p < 0.05)). Administration and Storage times were not statistically different. NNF (15.8 minutes) and NNP (16.2 minutes) also took less time to Learn than HTP (24.0 minutes) and GTP (26.0 minutes), p < 0.05). The number of weekly required administration steps was also least with NNF and NNP. Opportunity cost savings were greater in devices that were easier to prepare for use; GTP represented an 11.8% drug product savings over NNF, NNP and HTP at time of study. Overall supply costs represented <1% of drug costs for all devices.

Conclusions

Time-and-motion simulation data used to support a micro-cost analysis demonstrated that the pen device with the greater time demand has highest net costs.

Assessment of patient-reported outcomes of insulin pen devices versus conventional vial and syringe

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) associated with insulin therapy are potentially important determinants of adherence to diabetes management programs. This article reviews published evidence of PROs over the past 3 decades in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) and/or type 2 diabetes (T2D) who used vial and syringe for insulin delivery compared to those who used insulin pens. Based on predetermined selection criteria, articles were identified through a search of primary sources published from January 1980 to February 2008. Two independent reviewers determined study eligibility and performed a detailed evaluation of the articles that met the selection criteria. Of the 124 articles screened, 41 met selection criteria. Approximately 75% of the selected articles were published between 1990 and 2008, and a majority (78%) of the research studies was conducted outside the United States. Most (>75%) of the studies evaluated male and female patients with T1D and/or T2D and mean ages around 45 years. Studies used varied comparative study designs with follow-up periods ranging from 2 weeks to 5 years. The PROs assessed in these articles included preference, acceptability, treatment satisfaction, ease of use, convenience, injection pain, handling, and dosing. Most articles (n = 36) showed more favorable PROs for insulin pen users compared to vial and syringe users. These findings have potential clinical and policy implications for patients, diabetes care providers, and/or payers to make evidence-based decisions regarding ways to facilitate initiation and management of insulin therapy.

Initiating and intensifying insulin therapy in type 2 diabetes mellitus

Although insulin therapy for type 2 diabetes mellitus is perceived to be challenging to initiate and intensify, it forms a vital part of treatment as the disease progresses. This review discusses the challenges, real and perceived, faced by patients and their carers, and presents some practical suggestions concerning patient education and management of insulin therapy. A positive attitude toward insulin therapy can be achieved through patient education that focuses on disease pathophysiology and active involvement in treatment that enables them to manage concerns such as possible hypoglycemia, weight gain, and injection anxiety. Insulin analogues have more physiologic time-action profiles and are more convenient compared with older human insulins. Clinical trials show that insulin analogue regimens enable glycemic targets to be achieved with potentially less risk for hypoglycemia and more convenient dosing. Furthermore, finer needles and more convenient insulin-delivery systems are now available. With titration algorithms, intensification of an insulin regimen to improve glycemic control is relatively straightforward. Furthermore, patients with type 2 diabetes are less susceptible to hypoglycemia than are those with type 1 diabetes. With modern treatment options, insulin therapy need no longer be feared by patients with type 2 diabetes or their carers. Many common concerns in this respect are unfounded, and today's insulin regimens are generally simple, effective, and well tolerated.

Differences in the dose accuracy of insulin pens

BACKGROUND

Modern insulin injection pens provide a convenient and accurate way for diabetes patients to inject insulin. They have widespread use among children and adults with type 1 and type 2 diabetes in the U.S. and Europe. This study compared the dosing accuracy of four commonly available insulin pens (OptiClik and SoloSTAR from sanofi-aventis, FlexPen from Novo Nordisk, and HumaPen LUXURA from Eli Lilly).

METHODS

The dosing accuracy was tested for all pens with 24 x 10 IU and 9 x 30 IU injection volumes to investigate whether the pens complied with the acceptable International Organization for Standardization (ISO) limits of 10% (+/- 1 IU) for 10 IU and 5% (+/- 1.5 IU) for 30 IU. The doses were each applied with a new needle strictly according to the instructions for use by the pen manufacturers. A pharmaceutical balance was used for the assessment of the applied volumes, and the results were corrected for the specific density of the insulin formulations. Four insulin pens (two each from different production lots) were used for each of the two volumes, resulting in a total of 192 doses per pen with 10 IU, and 72 doses per pen with 30 IU.

RESULTS

FlexPen (mean absolute percent deviation for 10 IU and 30 IU: 1.64 +/- 0.84% and 0.83 +/- 0.26%, respectively) and HumaPen LUXURA (1.10 +/- 0.20% and 0.62 +/- 0.19%; not significant versus FlexPen for both doses) were more accurate than the OptiClik (4.78 +/- 3.31% and 2.97 +/- 2.48%, p <.01) and the SoloSTAR (2.61 +/- 0.92% and 1.70 +/- 0.84%, p <.05). While 6.8% of doses were outside the ISO limit at 10 IU with OptiClik (13.9% at 30 IU), the corresponding figures were 0.5% and 4.1%, respectively, for SoloSTAR. No doses outside the ISO limits were seen with FlexPen or HumaPen LUXURA at 10 IU and only one 30 IU dose (1.4%) was outside the limit for FlexPen.

CONCLUSIONS

A direct head-to-head comparison of four insulin pens with a standardized protocol resulted in a more stable dosing accuracy of the FlexPen and the HumaPen LUXURA in comparison to the OptiClik and SoloSTAR. Even though all insulin delivery systems undergo rigorous testing before being approved for sale, there may be reasons to be attentive to the performance of the devices in practical use.